Pynchon's reply

[Dave Monroe]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Rob Jackson <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Maybe I'm reading it wrongly ...

Always a possibilty ...

> Pynchon wrote one letter to Hollander back in 1981 and plainly told him he
> was barking up the wrong tree ...

"The sad truth is that you're giving me much too much credit.  My own
research is nowhere near as deep or as conscientious as yours."  Et
soforthiam.  Hardly a repudiation, certainly not of any given point,
neither here, nor there, though again, I would think that by now we
should all know better than to take "authors" at their word, esp, when
said word is about their words ...

Meanwhile, do you really think Pynchon was influenced to any extent,
if at all, by Patrick White?   Maybe you should risk asking.  How amny
of y'all HAVE read that one?  Me, I quite liked it, perhaops precisely
BECAUSE it's so far-fetched and circumstantial, demonstrating a
healthy, associative imagination on it's author's part so rarely
displayed here.  I'd almost thjink  ...

If there's one thing we should ALL give The Dude credit for here, it's
that he's teh only one of us I've seen here OR elsewhere offer an
actual, positive (i.e., "this is what Pynchon's saying," vs "this is
NOT what he's saying," the latter sentiment rarely if ever followed
here by alternative readings) interpretation (vs. critique, of either
Pynchon or of anyone else's reading of him) here.  He's at least put
his cards on the table, while the rest of us consternate over anteing
up, even ...

> ... the comments Pynchon makes in the letter aren't just about releasing
> a compilation of the short stories ...

Which of course happened nonetheless ...

> ... they're also directed at an interpretation or interpretations put forward in a letter
> or > (more likely, on the basis of the comments about "responding to your
> letters" and the amusing sign-off contrasting "silence" with "English") a
> series of letters we haven't seen ...

... much less read ....

> Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Hollander was floating some of his
> interpretive ideas in these letters which he developed later on into his critical
> articles ...?

I think we've all been assuming that, at the very least.  I've been
assuming The Dude may have sent him his extant papers @ the time
(1981), even.  I'm not entirely sure myself, though I may have been
told (or not) way back when ...

> Pynchon seems to be saying quite plainly in the reply that Hollander is
> barking up the wrong tree ...

Deju vu all over again ...

> Hollander keeps barking up that tree for 25-odd years nevertheless ...

Which he has every right to do, a right you've taken full advantage of
a well so long as I've been here, at very least, though, again,
"wrong" isn't necessarily the right word here ...

>  Note that Hollander's interpretations are
> absolutely predicated on imputing intentionality to the author ... Wouldn't
> it be more "logical" (to cite "Mr. Spock") to believe the author's own
> contradiction of such an imputation than to suggest that he'd actively write
> a false letter of discouragement to someone he doesn't know from Adam ... ?

You are such a trusting child, Robt. ...

> Now Hollander turns around and seemingly betrays not only the author's
> privacy but his own interpretive wrongheadedness for a sack of cash ... I
> mean, good luck to the guy for the windfall and all ... but isn't there
> something wrong with that picture too?

He didn't auction the letter, not this time around, at any rate.  I'm
not sure under what circusmatnces it initially left his possession.
Much less are you.  And sometimes people have to do what they have to
do ...

> I'm of the opinion that all the Wanda Tinasky, Unabomber, CIA stuff over the
> years has actually done a huge disservice to both the man and his work ...
> so perhaps am viewing the ramifications in a harsh light and do apologise to
> Hollander if there's more to it than just that

So, been "creatively editing" any Wikipedia entries? Nice picture on
teh Facebook, by the way ...